Segwit Reading Assignment

Blockchain and Bitcoin 101
#2750

1.) Bitcoin cash bigger block size

2.) Tx malleability - changing the sign and making a new TXID

3.) It fixes TX malleability and allows Lightning network to be possible.

4.) No because it is a soft fork

1 Like
#2751

1. The Alternative was to increase the block size from 1mb to 2mb but that would cause a hard fork leading to forming a new currency, stale blocks are the data is propagated slower into the nodes network and it is only a temporary solution.

2. Other than solving the scaling issue, Segwit solved the problem of signature malleability which will change the the transaction ID leading to more hacks and double spend.

3. Segwit removed the transaction signatures from the transactions which allowed more secured transactions that enabled the application of lightning network as a second layer solution.

4. no they are not forced to use Segwit as it was a soft fork, but the opposing party ended up using the scaling up approach which created a hard fork that leaded to the creation of bitcoin cash.

1 Like
#2752
  1. Increase the block size
  2. Transaction malleability
  3. SegWit made Lightning and other 2. layer protocols possible
  4. No because SegWit was a soft fork
1 Like
#2753
  1. To increase the block size from 1 MB to 2 MB.
  2. Solved the issue of tx malleability
  3. SegWit has enabled second layer support, such as the lightning network
  4. No, but more and more services are adopting it.
1 Like
#2754
  1. An increase of block size from 1mb to 2mb.
  2. Transaction malleability get’s solved with Segwit.
  3. Segwit enabled 2nd layer protocols like Lightning Network.
  4. Nobody is forced to use Segwit, it was a soft fork.
1 Like
#2755
  1. The bigger blocksize solution. This gave a hard fork and so BTCcash came into existence.
  2. Tansaction maleability.
    It also supports the development of second layer protocols. Meanly those that rely on unconfirmed Tx.
  3. LIghtning network is such a second layer protocol. It takes frequent small Tx’s of the blockchain.
  4. No, as it is a soft fork, users don’t have to update. Adoption is increasing.
1 Like
#2756

The proposed alternative to Segwit was to increase block size from 1 to 2MB.
Segwit not only solved scaling issues, but also removed transaction malleability and lowered fees.
Segwit supports the development of second layer protocols like lightning network, where it boosts Bitcoin’s transaction capacity.
No wallets were not forced to add Segwit, but instead created a soft fork while more wallets worked to get on board.

1 Like
#2757
  1. Block size increase
    2.SegWit fix’s a bug in the bitcoin code called transaction malleability. It also supports the development of second layer protocols, such as the lightning network.
  2. The lightning network will further boost bitcoin’s transaction capacity by taking frequent, small transactions off-chain, only settling on the bitcoin blockchain when the users are ready.
  3. No
1 Like
#2758
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

One alternative to Segwit was just to increase the capacity of blocks. One alternative that resulted in a hardfork was Bitcoin Cash which changed the capacity from 1MB to 8MB.

  1. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?

Segwit also resolved the problem of transaction malleability by removing the signatures from the transaction data. With Segwit, even if the signature is changed, all the transaction data that is hashed stays the same.

  1. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

Segwit supports the development of second layer protocols and scaling solutions, like the Lightning network. Lightning network can take small frequent transactions off-chain before settling on the bitcoin blockchain once users are ready.

  1. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?

No, everyone is not forced to use Segwit since it is a soft fork and not a hard fork. It is still compatible with the old protocol.

1 Like
#2759
  1. A proposed alternative to Segwit was to directly change the blocksize, as was done with the Bitcoin Cash Hard Fork
  2. The way that Segwit solved the scaling issues, allowed TX’s pes eocnd to increase for 3 per second to 7 per second. It also fixed the Transaction Malleability problem
  3. The Lightning network is based on the Segwit Soft Fork and the Lighting Network is intended to allow (potentially) huge levels of transactions per second
  4. Segwit is not mandatory. People, wallets and other services can continue to stay ‘non Segwit’. Current Segwit take-up can be roughly summarised as around 40%.
1 Like
#2760

  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    ~An increase in block size which also lead to a hard fork, Bitcoin Cash.

  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    ~Transaction malleability.

  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    ~ Adds security disabling the maleability security breach

  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    ~No it is a soft fork, cant work.

1 Like
#2761
  1. An increase in block size.
  2. SegWit solved the transaction malleability.
  3. SegWit supports the second layer solution which is the ligh
  4. No, it is a soft fork.
1 Like
#2762
  1. Increase of block size beyond 1 mB
  2. Problem of altering transaction ID
  3. They both proposed modifications to bitcoin protocol to allow faster transactions
  4. No. They are free to opt-in or out.
1 Like
#2763

  1. An alternative to the adoption of Segwit was to increase the block size limit, removing the 1mB cap. This idea was fully realised with the introduction of bitcoin cash, which implements a larger block size rather than utilising a new transaction structure.

  2. Other than the issue of scaling, by removing the signature from the structure of the base transaction block, Segwit solved the issue of transaction malleability.

  3. The introduction of Segwit meant that there was added security by mitigating the risk of users tampering with transactions. This then allowed the development of second layer protocols, one of which is the lightning network, that enables increased expediency without the security risks that would have arisen if it were not for the introduction of Segwit.

  4. No person (or wallet) is forced to use Segwit; as a soft fork, the chain does not split in the way that it would if an expansion of the ruleset (or a ‘hard fork’) was to be implemented. Users could have still opted to use the traditional method.

1 Like
#2764

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
Increase the block limit (forked then later in Bitcoin Cash)

2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
Second layers protocols
Enable smart contracts
Schnorr signatures
Tumblebit

3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
Lightning network is a second layer protocol.
The malleability fix made less riskier to develop it.
Segwit allowed Lightning network to be developed.

4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
Main wallets were being update with the Segwit support.
It is not mandatory as it was a softfork.

1 Like
#2765

  1. To increase the blocksize.

  2. Solved transaction malleability issues, enabled a second layer protocol & smart contracts to be built upon it.

  3. Segwit made it possible to add a second layer protocol, which sped up transaction time by only settling the transaction on the blockchain.

  4. No its flexible due to it being a soft fork, so one can use old addresses and transactions on the old protocol or the new one.

1 Like
#2766
  1. Alternative was obvious, i.e. an increase of the block size.
  2. Segwit fixed a bug in the initial code, named malleability, when everyone was able to slightly change the TX ID without changing of the TX core.
  3. Segwit made unconfirmed transactions less risky and, in turn, it helped a lot the developers of lightning because this network is taking frequent small transactions off-chain.
  4. Segwit was a softwork with a hash rate more than 50% and it means that some people were forced to implement the Segwit. Those who were unhappy with this decision picked the increase of the block size and the hardfork happend, having resulted appearance of the Bitcoin Cash
1 Like
#2767

Answers to the “Segwit reading assignment” questions:

  1. Increase to the block size limit of 1MB
  2. It fixed transaction malleability, removed the signature information. Supporting the development of second layer protocols, such as the lightning network.
  3. The malleability fix made a feature that relied on unconfirmed transactions less risky and easier to design. The lightning network will further boost bitcoins transaction capacity by taking frequent, small transactions off chain, only setting on the blockchain when the users are ready.
  4. No hard fork was needed because it was compatible with the previous protocol.
1 Like
#2768
  • What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?

Increasing the block size

  • What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?

Transaction malleability by storing signatures outside the transaction data struture

  • How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?

Segwit allowed the Lightning network to be build on layer 2

  • Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?

No it was a soft fork, although other wallets and exchanges are adding SegWit support.

1 Like
#2769

  1. A proposed alternative was to increase the block size to 2 mB.

  2. Segway also solved the issues that may occur when second layer protocols are developed on the blockchain.

  3. Lightning network could not have been created successfully without Segwit. The lightning network will further boost bitcoin’s transaction capacity by taking frequent, small transactions off-chain, only settling on the bitcoin blockchain when the users are ready.

  4. No.

1 Like